Cycle paths to get another review

Horrid said :

Actually Chewy, the question is not a matter of opinion, but logical fact.

It is well known by anyone who does the research that cyclists DO pay for their road use- the various means by which they contribute the money or save the community money have been pointed out countless times before.

Its also well known by anyone who does the research, that a driver who is on the road without ensuring the particular vehicle they are driving, is legally registered and permitted on the road, and also to ensure that they are properly licenced, and that payment for both is up-to-date, regardless of the rego/licence state of any other vehicle or driver at their address.

You may get off calling others ignorant, but if you arent aware that each vehicle you use on the road must be registered, then it appears that you sir are the ignorant one.

Our taxes paid for the bruce stadium, yet if I ever attend an event there Im still required to pay, and stating that ‘I pay tax, and my tax dollars built your stadium’, still wont get you off the hook for having to pay if you want to enter the area.

Actually Chewy, the question is not a matter of opinion, but logical fact.

It is well known by anyone who does the research that cyclists DO pay for their road use- the various means by which they contribute the money or save the community money have been pointed out countless times before. So anyone who claims otherwise is by automatic definition either ignorant, stupid, or a liar. This is a simple matter of fact rather than who disagrees with who.

Why are you a supporter of ignorance, stupidity and deceit?

“save their breath for people who do something stupid or rude”

and dangerous.

vibes said :

The other day, when driving to Manuka along Mugga Way there were a group of three bike riders in front of me. Two were side by side, the other was tagging behind. Being very careful and giving them as much space as possible l turned left into Moresby Cres , I then heard a chorus of abuse as l went around the corner. For what reason still puzzles me but , next time l will just run them bloody over.

Without being there, that fact that you were close enough to hear abuse in your car as you went around the corner seems to indicate that you cut them off. Cyclists, usually in the middle of a rigourous aerobic activity, tend to save their breath for people who do something stupid or rude.

Of course if your wide innocent Bambi eyes are genuinely innocent, don’t worry about it. Well done for being aware of cyclists on the road. Like romping with little kids, you just have to remember you’re bigger and heavier than them, and shrug off whatever they do.

Horrid,
the fact that you think there is only three options all of which conclude with saying the commenter who disagrees with you is ignorant, stupid or a liar only prove:
a) you are an ignoramus.
b) you have no idea what your talking about
c) you like straw men
d) all of the above

What Kramer said above is the way to go. More education and awareness will work better than more taxes or fees.

#46.

Is this supposed to make cyclists look bad ?

“next time I will just run them bloody over.”

Real smart.

vibes: get over it, although if you heard the abuse you were rather close – maybe you could have waited?

The other day, when driving to Manuka along Mugga Way there were a group of three bike riders in front of me. Two were side by side, the other was tagging behind. Being very careful and giving them as much space as possible l turned left into Moresby Cres , I then heard a chorus of abuse as l went around the corner. For what reason still puzzles me but , next time l will just run them bloody over.

On a post I started several months back, I asked the following question of people who make posts stating or implying that cyclists don’t pay for their road use:
Are you:
1. Not aware of the countless taxes that cyclists pay towards road construction costs- i.e. ignorant
or
2. Aware of them but unable to comprehend that this means they do in fact pay for their use- i.e. Stupid
or
3. Both aware of the above and able to understand it, but stil choose to make such posts- i.e. a liar.

Given the number of times that this issue has been debated on this thread, I am guessing that almost all of such posters fall into the third category.

Just convert every vehicle to Flintstones drive and everyone will be equal.

If you want to talk road education then I think it needs to be done on two fronts:
– Cars : better driver education than parallel parking and head checks, like defensive driving, skid control, road awareness, etc.
– Cyclists : start with the kids and reopen the cycle road skills centres (like the one in Belconnen). For the older cyclists, some cycling info & road rules distributed through ACT govt shopfronts, website, and local cycling clubs would help – maybe on the back of an ACT on-road cycling map.

Probably also general education for car / bike awareness would help for all parties involved. Maybe the govt could splash out on some prime-time TV ad spots (or advertising on RiotACT). Then we would have a big, happy community on the road, with love and hugs everywhere.

Well I’m going to throw a few cents in seeing as everyone else has. 😉

I personally, think the bike lanes ARE a good idea. However, they need to be monitored/enforced a little better.

I could easily say that in the past year I’ve seen as many cyclists break the road rules (red lights/jumping between footpaths and cycle lanes as they see fit/riding across pedestrian crossings without dismounting etc.) and act dangerously (swerving violently into other lanes/ducking between lanes in slowing traffic/cutting across intersections between cars) than I have cars (if you remove speeding from the illegal activities 😉 ). I agree, the damage to the wider community/roads is minor compared to their big metal counterparts, but without cyclists trained/educated about this sort of thing they wont ever learn.

I’ll throw an idea out… maybe a licencing setup needs to be implemented? All cyclists riding in cycle paths on the roads must be:-
a) physically fit enough to handle the road – the amount of cyclists I have seen that are swerving and practically falling over due to exhaustion is amazing;
b) know the road rules applicable to cyclists – perhaps a seminar similar to the P-Off courses that is mandatory for them to be able to;
c) hold a licence – maybe a new category added onto a drivers licence like the p-off/motorcycle/provisional letters on the back of the cards with the licence only being able to be obtained by the seminar.

Again – The majority of the RiotACT faithful seem to be riders… so I know it may not be well received. But it could help in the development of respect between drivers/cyclists? If the few idiotic (and/or unsuitable) riders that every driver stereotypes towards all cyclists (much like the p-plater arguement) were forced to be educated and moderated then maybe things wouldn’t be so bad?

Jerry Atric said :

Very flat, Holland.

And with very high population densities.

goose said :

Stanhope and his donkeys should go to Holland and take a look. We could learn a lot about transport from them.

Very flat, Holland.

dvaey, your original assertion was that any ‘vehicle’ (I take you mean user as a vehicle is an inanimate object incapable of paying its way) on a road should subsidise roads. The fact is everyone subsidizes the road whether they use it or not.

The other costs you mention, such as insurance and road rescue, have nothing to do with road usage. Insurance is insurance: a premium to pay for damage. If by road rescue you mean NRMA, that is purely voluntary. If you mean emergency services, that is again funded by tax-payers. I have no idea what you mean by road safety fee. You’ll have to explain that one to me. And I have no idea what you’re talking about re children. I think you might have got me confused for someone else.

If you believe in user pay, then cars are a far greater burden on road systems than bicycles and should pay significantly extra. You cannot seriously be equating 10-20 kilos of bicycle to 1 to 1.5 tons of car that requires all the crap like reflectors, speed signs, traffic lights, lighting, guard rails, traffic calming, not to mention the relentless and ongoing wear and tear.

Why would we defend unregistered motorcycles. Motorcycles still require the same traffic and speed management that cars require and weigh significantly more than 20 kilos while travelling significantly faster.
Having said that, motorcyclists pay way less rego than car drivers, and rego for motorcycles under 300cc costs significantly less than motorcycles over 300cc, and I don’t know what electric bikes pay but I bet its a circular figure. The sliding scale is pretty obvious in terms of impact.
When was the last time you saw bicycles generate a pothole or require hundreds of millions of dollars in traffic management???

And wtf with unregistered tractors?!!? Who the hell would think of defending unregistered tractors in a thread relating to cycleways. We also forgot to defend unregistered tanks, and bulldozers, and bobcats, and combine harvesters. My bad. I’m always running into those on Canberra roads.

Cyclists subsidise roads. Little old ladies at home subsidise roads. Little Johnny buying his lollies subsidises roads. That’s what you want isn’t it? No freeloaders. Drivers pay more because they chew up the roads everyone pays for and chew through a vast amount of resources. As they should.

As a driver, motorcyclist, and cyclist, I recommend you build a bridge and re-evaluate your mode of transport if you have a problem paying for it.

People, it’s all about sharing….didn’t your parents teach you that?

Felix the Cat said :

Agreed, on-road bike lanes aren’t for everyone. You wouldn’t let 5 year old Johnny or Mary ride on them, they are more for the commuters and ‘roadies’. I like them but they are no use if they aren’t made properly (loose gravel with light spray of tar eg Cotter Rd) and then maintained (need to sweep debris from them on a more regular basis eg rocks, glass, tree branches etc).

Cyclists on ‘shared paths with joggers/walkers don’t mix IMHO. If a cyclist doing 20km/h collides with granny or small child who’s walking at 5km/h then there is potential for serious injury of both parties. It has also been my experience that a lot of the pedestrian traffic on these paths walk two, three or more abreast and make little effort, if any, to move to one side of the path as a cyclist tries to ride past. Then there are the unrestrained small children and pets to negotiate (I know children aren’t meant to be on a leash but parents are still supposed to control them).

Not really sure what the solution is. It’s obviously not feasible to have a heap of different paths all going to the same destination and all running along side each other, one for walkers, one for joggers, one for cyclists etc etc. I guess the best compromise is what we have now with a mixture of paths and on-road cycling and for everyone to be more tolerant of others and slow down or move over.

Might help if a few more cyclists had or used bells on their bikes to warn pedestrians that they are approaching. (Not saying that you don’t but plenty of bad eggs out there are ruining it for all)

I have no issue with getting off the cycle path to allow bike riders to pass but if you come up from behind and don’t ring your bell or call out, well sorry, but I don’t have eyes in the back of my head so I’m not going to move off the path for something I don’t know is there.

AstralPlane said :

I know it’s a bit boring to go over it again, but here goes. Nobody missed the bit about on-road bike lanes. You just missed the bit about who pays. The point is that cyclists that use on road bike lanes do pay for roads. … you get a whole extra bit of value for every cyclist you see on the road that pays taxes and then doesn’t drive.

I dont really see the difference here between a cyclist who has a car at home, and a motorcyclist who has his car at home. Except that the motorcyclist has to be registered, licenced and trained in the road rules, and specifically how to control their small bike on the road amongst much larger vehicles.

AstralPlane said :

Even more so for those cyclists that pay tax and have a registered car too. Heck, I have two of them (so, as you say, I have a double right to complain about the poor state and low number of on road cycle paths).

Last time I looked, ‘registered’ state goes with the vehicle, not with the owner. It doesnt matter if I have 5 cars registered at home, if I take a vehicle that is not registered onto the public road, I am committing an offence.

I can’t remember the stats, but the percentage of riders you see on the road that also pay rego is large. By all means come back for another rant, but look that up first eh.

Ive still seen no-one trying to defend unregistered motorbikes, or unregistered tractors, that may only be on the road once a week, and Im sure most people who own a motorbike or tractor also own another vehicle that they pay registration on. Ive never disputed that cyclists may also pay rego on a car, what Im pointing out is that defence doesnt work if you take any other vehicle on-road.

> However I’m yet to see a cyclist on the new cycle paths alongside Cotter Rd near Weston Creek.

I use that new path each & every time I ride to/from work…& there’s always been other cyclists on it too.

Stanhope and his donkeys should go to Holland and take a look. We could learn a lot about transport from them.

I know it’s a bit boring to go over it again, but here goes. Nobody missed the bit about on-road bike lanes. You just missed the bit about who pays. The point is that cyclists that use on road bike lanes do pay for roads. So, out of that tiny little bit of your rego fee that goes towards the road (as opposed to the massive subsidy out of general revenue) you get a whole extra bit of value for every cyclist you see on the road that pays taxes and then doesn’t drive. You should thank them. Put it on a bumper sticker or something. Even more so for those cyclists that pay tax and have a registered car too. Heck, I have two of them (so, as you say, I have a double right to complain about the poor state and low number of on road cycle paths), and then a few times a week I ride and cause a whole lot less wear and tear on the road for my rego, and yours, to pay for. Maybe on your logic I should get a refund for that – if we took the on road cycle paths away would you be happy to pay me for each time I choose to ride instead of drive? I can’t remember the stats, but the percentage of riders you see on the road that also pay rego is large. By all means come back for another rant, but look that up first eh.

And then cyclists take less out of the health budget by being healthy. Better again for you. Each time you see a cyclist you should think to yourself: “aaahh, look at those lovely little bikers keeping my marginal tax rate down”.

Felix the Cat said :

Hey dvaey, what about rego for prams and wheelchairs too if we are going to go to all the trouble and expense of creating special paths for them. Oops almost forgot about roller blades/skates, skateboards and scooters – better slap them with a rego charge too. Maybe the joggers and walkers need to hang a number plate around their neck too if they are going to be using the paths.

Which part of on-road bike lane did you miss in my comments? If people wish to put a pram or a wheelchair or a skateboard on the road, why should they not be registered? Note here Im talking about the on-road bike lanes, not the off-road footpaths or bike paths. These bike lanes are generally only on main roads, where kids and prams and such shouldnt be anyway.

Felix the Cat said :

What about those freeloading footballers and cricketers? Why should they get free ovals to play on at taxpayers expense when it’s a user pays system?

Firstly, I was under the impression that sports teams paid for their use of sporting grounds.

If youre using a facility for free, that other people are paying to use, you kinda lose your right to complain about those who do pay. If you want to complain about cracked footpaths or something, okay, thats public area with no restrictions. If you want to complain about a bit of gravel on the side of the road in your bike lane.. well, you get what youve paid for.

I want a Mountain bile trail from Duffy to Civic and work !!!! Then I can include a Stromlo ride on the way to work or on the way home. Make it rough near Civic so no one can try and walk on it.

dvaey, I think the biggest problem with bike rego is that the Govt is trying to encourage cycling. Not make it more difficult.

Felix the Cat said :

Why do they need to pay consultants who probably know nothing on the subject, why not just get Pedal Power and perhaps the other main cycling clubs in Canberra to send their suggestions in? It would cost considerably less and the money saved could be put back into new cycling facilities/repairs to existing facilities.

Probably because the review is about more than cyclists. You were provided with a link so that if you didn’t know what you were talking about you could find out.

Hey dvaey, what about rego for prams and wheelchairs too if we are going to go to all the trouble and expense of creating special paths for them. Oops almost forgot about roller blades/skates, skateboards and scooters – better slap them with a rego charge too. Maybe the joggers and walkers need to hang a number plate around their neck too if they are going to be using the paths.

What about those freeloading footballers and cricketers? Why should they get free ovals to play on at taxpayers expense when it’s a user pays system? Better rego the kiddies too, those playgrounds cost a motser.

Rego for push bikes (as has been discussed here previously on numerous occasions) is at best unworkable and at worst discriminatory.

Im not saying all bicycles should be registered. Im saying if you expect the roads and bike lanes to be there and well maintained, why should you not have to pay for that? If paying for a car at home and riding your bike is a defence then why arent motorbike riders out there protesting against having to pay for their 200kg bike after theyve already paid for their car at home?

taco, if little jimmy wants to ride in the 2′ wide green painted bike lane with cars rushing past at 60-80km/hr then yes I believe he should.

suppose there would be a requirement to light the rego plate at night too.
Well, anyone who rides in an on-road bike lane, should be lit up properly, yes.

Postalgeek, claiming that I pay for the roads as a car driver through the GST I pay on the vehicle and my tyres, doesnt really get me out of having to pay my rego and insurance every year, not to mention road-rescue fee, road safety fee, etc. Also if you think I was the first person to bring up distracted kids not looking where theyre going on bikes, you seemingly didnt read the whole thread.

I think you misunderstand that my comments are specifically related to on-road bike lanes, not off-road bike paths which I believe should be free for anyone to use, but an on-road bike lane is classified as a public road, and as a paying user, I believe others should pay too, whether its for a car, a motorbike, a truck or a bicycle.

Do any of you cyclists use the new cycle lane on Yamba Dve heading south where the new traffic lights at the Mawson intersection are? The world’s shortest cycle lane, it can’t be even 10m long. What’s with that? I’ve read lots of complaints here about cycle lanes ending suddenly, but Yamba dve is seriously crazy.

I’m surprised it took 22 post for someone to start ranting about bicycles needing to be registered.

It usually takes much less time on here for such posts, must be because of the long weekend.

No Dvaey, you don’t make generalizations. You make tedious inaccurate statements that this board has addressed in the past. Cyclists pay for roads, through a plethora of taxes, including the GST slapped on their bike, tubes and tires. They even pay through the rego of their car that’s not in the car spot you just found. They pay, and yet they still have to read and listen to cyclists-don’t-pay drivel.

Incidentally, you seem to have issue with a basic aspect of modern civilization, the communal pot. If you don’t like to pay for other people, and don’t like other people paying for you, I suggest you find some remote hole without roads, electricity, schools, or hospitals and make yourself at home.

And finally, dangerous cyclists seem to feature rarely in the daily reports of carnage on our roads. For some bizarre reason, it always seems to be the registered drivers that seem to be killing everyone. But kudos to you for making me laugh with the dangerous bikes swerving at cars comment.

dvaey – Roads are paid for out of general taxation, and like most public services is not a “user pays” system. Next you’ll be complaining about kids using a quiet street to play cricket on without paying their way…

Where am I going to put a rego plate on my bike? does little jimmy need to register his tricycle? I suppose there would be a requirement to light the rego plate at night too. What do you register against? do we start putting the equivalent of VINs onto the frame?

We need to register cars because they are expensive, dangerous objects. It helps with identifying stolen cars. In NSW this includes also an annual road-worthiness test, and also ensures that every registered car has third party injury insurance.

A bicycle is much less likely to cause a fatal accident or even cause injury, even with nobody checking they are mechanically sound, without any training or licensing etc, thus the costs of registering bikes would outweigh any possible benefit – it’d cost more than $10/yr just to process the registration fee

Felix the Cat said :

Agreed, on-road bike lanes aren’t for everyone. You wouldn’t let 5 year old Johnny or Mary ride on them, they are more for the commuters and ‘roadies’. I like them but they are no use if they aren’t made properly (loose gravel with light spray of tar eg Cotter Rd) and then maintained (need to sweep debris from them on a more regular basis eg rocks, glass, tree branches etc).

I love how cyclists dont pay road tax or road user fees for their on-road vehicle, but expect the funds that are paid by road-users (read: car drivers, who they despise) to pay for their paths.

I still feel the best solution, is any vehicle that uses the road-surface should help subsidise it. Sure, your bike doesnt cause as much wear and tear on the road, but it doesnt cost any less to sweep a bike-lane than it does to sweep a road. I think the UK has the right idea, with starting to tax bicycles to help pay for bike paths, etc. It doesnt matter if I pay my GST or if I pay my road user tax on some other vehicle(s).. if I take an unregistered vehicle on the road I commit an offence, that should be the same offence whether the vehicle is a car, a truck, a motorbike or a bicycle.

If you dont like the idea of paying for the road you use, youre more than welcome to use the designated bike paths, but if you wish to join other vehicles on the roadway, then why not pay like every other vehicle has to? I believe that if bicycles had identification plates on them, cyclists might start to respect the laws properly and the public would have greater confidence that cyclists ARE respecting the laws.

Hands up, how many cyclists would be willing to pay $10/year to pay for maintanence to the roadway they choose to use? If you really dont want to pay the $10, then ride on the bike path and not the road, its not rocket science. I would also like this to lead to some sort of accountability for cyclists, that drivers (or pedestrians) could lodge a complaint against a dangerous cyclist, the same way you can do so for a dangerous driver. If a car swerves at a bike, you can grab its rego number, if a bike swerves at a car, a driver has no recourse for even identifying the offender, so blanketly hates all cyclists.

I understand theres a lot of generalisations in my post, but I think cyclists contribution and accountability might improve the general rep on the roads, especially if cyclists wish to be considered as vehicles and have the same rights on the roadway, that should come with responsibilities.

Androo – trust me, I ride the strip to Stromlo Forest Park all the time and I would use the onroad bike lanes if I could. But most of the lanes built last year were made out of that cheap gravel that requires cars to compress and smooth out. No cars in bike lane means no smooth road.
At least some of the bike lanes built this year are made of hotmix but even then these lanes all end up with crud from the road – lots and lots of gravel, glass (always seems to be brown or green, I wonder why?), and sometimes roadkill! If the onroad bike lanes were fit for purpose, didn’t put cyclists in more danger rather than less, and didn’t rip our tyres to shreds, then we might actually use them….

I don’t care what they do, as long as they make it abundantly clear on shared paths that people need to Stay Left <—-for safety's sake.

That applies double to the parents of little SCUD missiles (Small Children Unguided in Direction). Cyclists can try to anticipate oncoming traffic, but there is nothing physically possible bar dismounting and walking everytime you pass a family group to avoid a collision if a child veers across the lane. There a many cycle paths/shared paths that have limited vision. You cannot expect a cyclist to anticipate a blocked path around every corner. Motorists don't.

A fit cyclist can easily cruise between 30 and 40 kph on the flat and 50-80kph down a hill. On such occasions in a 60 kph speed zone the speed gap between a car and a cyclist is significantly less than the speed gap between a cyclist and a pedestrian. [/doublepost]

thomped0200 said :

GET THE BIKES OFF ROADS THAT ARE OVER 60KPH!
Its crazy that with one short lapse of concentration you can land yourself in jail and kill someone.

As opposed to having one short lapse in concentration and ploughing into pedestrians or a school bus. GET THE PEOPLE WHO CAN”T CONCENTRATE OFF ROADS THAT ARE OVER 10KPH!

It would be great to have off road cycle paths as straight and direct and free from pedestrians and dogs as a road is. It would be even greater to have them well away from the cars so that they’re not littered with beer bottle glass.

But it’s far cheaper to just stick an extra white line on the road and call it a cycle lane. If the government does decide to spend the money then there would be another Riot Act post created to ask why cyclists are getting this special treatment when roads like the Glenloch interchange can’t handle the peak hour traffic.

I’m afraid we’re stuck with a 1 or 2 metre strip of road where, thanks to drivers who are too busy texting or sipping on a VB, I will stay away from when riding.

A bigger fear for drivers is encountering a wobbly cyclist – perhaps they hit a puddle, deposit of gravel or a pile of eucalyptus nuts, or perhaps they lost their concentration for a just a minute. Whatever the cause, the consequences could be grim.

As irresponsible as Thomped0200s comment is, the reality is there are people on our roads with less than satisfactory driving abilities. Thomped raises a good point that cyclists need to be seperated from vehicle traffic by more than a painted line. While the comment recognises the consequences of inattention while driving, I agree that motorists who pose a threaet to themselves and others on the roads shouldn’t be there.

However I’m yet to see a cyclist on the new cycle paths alongside Cotter Rd near Weston Creek. They rarely stay in the cycle lane between Stromlo and the cycle path turnoff, and then just flip out onto the road for the rest of the way down to the traffic lights – entirely ignoring the newly-constructed cycle paths.

So why not ride in cycle lane where it’s provided (built last year)?
and why not ride on the newly-finished cycle paths (off the road)?

and if cyclists don’t want to use such facilities, why build them?

thomped0200 said :

GET THE BIKES OFF ROADS THAT ARE OVER 60KPH!
Its crazy that with one short lapse of concentration you can land yourself in jail and kill someone.

Can someone get this guy off the road. Please!!

If your concentration is that easily lost, you shouldn’t be driving at all. Turn your license in and get used to the pluses of buses.

“thomped0200” Maybe you should stop driving, your short lapse of concentration might put you under a truck. No Hard working truck driver should have to face the responsibility of your death, even if its not their fault.

Felix the Cat said

Why do they need to pay consultants who probably know nothing on the subject, why not just get Pedal Power and perhaps the other main cycling clubs in Canberra to send their suggestions in? It would cost considerably less and the money saved could be put back into new cycling facilities/repairs to existing facilities.

Ditto – totally agree – just think of how much money could be saved if the Govt actually did this. Problem is they would end up getting a report they don’t want to hear. That’s what consultants do – pitch it for the customer (ACT Govt) and not write up what the actual public want.

Cheers Apollo

I agree keep the bikes off the roads. How boring and dangerous is riding on the road anyway. I much prefer the bike paths far more pleasant and safe riding and interesting as well.

Agreed, on-road bike lanes aren’t for everyone. You wouldn’t let 5 year old Johnny or Mary ride on them, they are more for the commuters and ‘roadies’. I like them but they are no use if they aren’t made properly (loose gravel with light spray of tar eg Cotter Rd) and then maintained (need to sweep debris from them on a more regular basis eg rocks, glass, tree branches etc).

Cyclists on ‘shared paths with joggers/walkers don’t mix IMHO. If a cyclist doing 20km/h collides with granny or small child who’s walking at 5km/h then there is potential for serious injury of both parties. It has also been my experience that a lot of the pedestrian traffic on these paths walk two, three or more abreast and make little effort, if any, to move to one side of the path as a cyclist tries to ride past. Then there are the unrestrained small children and pets to negotiate (I know children aren’t meant to be on a leash but parents are still supposed to control them).

Not really sure what the solution is. It’s obviously not feasible to have a heap of different paths all going to the same destination and all running along side each other, one for walkers, one for joggers, one for cyclists etc etc. I guess the best compromise is what we have now with a mixture of paths and on-road cycling and for everyone to be more tolerant of others and slow down or move over.

GET THE BIKES OFF ROADS THAT ARE OVER 60KPH!
Its crazy that with one short lapse of concentration you can land yourself in jail and kill someone.

I am informed that there was a survey of the condition of the Mount Rogers walking track last May. It is listed in my Birthday Book for dishonourable mention next May. Meanwhile negotiating the track remains an extreme sport for wrinklies.

Pedesrians with dogs deserve nice walking paths too you know. It aint all about lyra wearing middle aged men with beards.

bd84 said :

how many sustainable action transport plans do we need? there are about 3 already that the Government has done just about nothing towards any of them.

Yeah you have to wonder whether it isn’t time to start *implementing* some of the plans don’t you?

Reps from TaMS and Brown Consulting will be at the GCC meeting on 14 October (Palmerston Community Centre) to discuss this (and presumably what is different this time…), for any northsiders interested.

Guess it gives us an opportunity to (once again) point out the need for some formalised paths across the grassland reserves to the Gungahlin town centre from Crace, Palmerston and Franklin (could be combined with environmental interpretive signage).

Will also reiterate our concern with the focus on on-road cycle paths at the expense of off-road cycle ways. These glorified road shoulders lead to so many serious accidents (what accident between a vehicle and a cyclist *isn’t* serious? he asks), you have to wonder about how the cost/benefit could stack up. Then there’s the lower up-take because of all the people (myself inc) who won’t use on-road cyclelanes.

Riding on roads turns me off riding all together, but that seems to be the direction they’re mostly taking.

Where are you supposed to store your bikes in these new suburbs anyway?

Maybe the government should just finish off moving all cyclists to the roads, so they can sell up all that real-estate thats being taken up by bike paths or something. It seems the government believes bikes would rather use roadways than designated cycleways away from the roads, so why not turn those designated cycleways into light-rail or something similar?

Why do they need to pay consultants who probably know nothing on the subject, why not just get Pedal Power and perhaps the other main cycling clubs in Canberra to send their suggestions in? It would cost considerably less and the money saved could be put back into new cycling facilities/repairs to existing facilities.

how many sustainable action transport plans do we need? there are about 3 already that the Government has done just about nothing towards any of them.